ADD on imports of NBR from China EU Korea and Russia

REGD. No. D. L.-33004/99 EXTRAORDINARY PART I—Section 1 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY No. 263] NEW DELHI, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2025/ASVINA 3, 1947 CG-DL-E-29092025-266474 6427 GI/2025 (1) MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE) (Directorate General of Trade Remedies) NOTIFICATION FINAL FINDINGS CASE NO. AD (OI) – 27/2024 New Delhi, the 25th September, 2025 Subject: Anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (‘NBR’) from China PR, European Union, Korea RP and Russia. F. No. 06/29/2024 – DGTR - Having regard to the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995 thereof, as amended from time to time (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘AD Rules’ or the ‘Rules’) thereof; a. The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority’) received an application filed on behalf of the domestic industry by Apcotex Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’ or the ‘domestic industry’) seeking initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (‘NBR’) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘product under consideration’ or ‘PUC’) from China PR, European Union, Korea RP and Russia (hereinafter referred to as the ‘subject countries’, with imports of the product under consideration from the subject countries referred to as ‘subject imports’ or ‘subject goods’). b. The Authority examined the application and found prima facie evidence that exports from the subject countries were at dumped prices and there was consequent injury to the domestic industry. Accordingly, pursuant to Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules, vide Notification F. No. 06/29/2024 – DGTR dated 26 September 2024, the Authority initiated an investigation to examine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of the subject goods and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which if levied, would be adequate to remove the alleged injury to the domestic industry. A. PROCEDURE 1. The procedure described below has been followed with regard to the investigation: a. In accordance with Rule 5(5), prior to initiation of the investigation, the Authority notified governments of the subject countries through their embassies in India about the receipt of the present anti-dumping application. b. As noted above, upon examination of the application, the Authority found prima facie evidence of dumping and consequent injury. Therefore, in accordance with Rules 5 and 6, vide Notification F. No. 06/29/2024 – DGTR dated 26 September 2024 (‘Initiation Notification’), the Authority initiated the present proceedings. c. As noted in the initiation notification, the period of investigation (‘POI’) was considered as 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024. The injury period was set to cover the years 2020-21, 2021-22. 2022-23 and the period of investigation. d. A request was made to the Directorate General for Systems and Data Management (DG Systems) for transaction-wise import data of the subject goods for the injury period. The Authority received the data and has relied upon this data for the necessary analysis after due examination of the transactions. e. In accordance with Rule 6(2), the Authority informed interested parties of the initiation of the investigation by sharing a copy of the initiation notification with the embassies of the subject countries in India, known producers and exporters of the product under consideration in the subject countries, known importers of the subject goods in India and other interested parties, as per the information made available in the application. f. In accordance with Rule 6(3), the Authority provided a copy of the non-confidential version of the application to the governments of the subject countries through their embassies in India, known exporters of the subject imports and to other interested parties who requested in writing for a copy of the application. g. In accordance with Rule 6(4), the Authority issued questionnaires to the exporters and other interested parties to seek information regarding the normal value and net export price for the investigation. h. The Authority sent questionnaires to the governments of the subject countries through their embassies in India. The governments of the subject countries were requested to forward the Initiation Notification and the questionnaires to the producers of the subject goods in their respective countries and advise them to respond to the questionnaire within the prescribed time limit. i. The following known producers and exporters have registered themselves as interested parties in these proceedings: | SN | Country | Producer/Exporter | |----|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | 1 | European Union | ARLANXEO Emulsion Rubber France S.A.S. (hereinafter | | | | referred to as ‘Arlanxeo’) | | 2 | China PR | ARLANXEO TSRC (Nantong) Chemical Industrial Co. Ltd | | 3 | Korea RP | Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as| | | | ‘KPC’) | | 4 | Russia | Krasnoyarsk Synthetic Rubber Plant, Public Joint-Stock | | | | Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘KSRP’) | | 5 | Russia | PJSC Sibur Holding (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sibur’) | | 6 | China | SIBUR International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd | | 7 | China | SIBUR Istanbul Uluslararasi Ticaret Limited Sirketi | j. The following importers, users and user associations have registered themselves as interested parties in the present proceedings: | SN | Importer/User/Association | |----|-----------------------------------------------| | 1 | Imperial Waterproofing Industries Pvt. Ltd. | | 2 | Indian Rubber Gloves Manufacturers Association| | 3 | JMF Performance Materials Private Limited | | 4 | JMF Synthetics India Private Limited | | 5 | Koove IOT Private Limited | | 6 | Latrile Gloves Private Limited | | 7 | Liberty Med Supplies Private Limited | | 8 | Navco Industries Private Limited | | 9 | NBR Cooling System Pvt Ltd | | 10 | Reliance Sibur Elastomers Private Limited | | | (RSEP) | | 11 | Rishiroop Limited | | 12 | Rishiroop Polymers Private Limited | | 13 | Tegamen Safety Products Pvt Ltd | | 14 | Wadi Surgicals Private Limited | k. The Authority issued an Economic Interest Questionnaire (EIQ) to assess public interest and impact of the duties on the wider economy. A copy of the EIQ was sent to the embassy of each subject country, all the known exporters, importers and users and the domestic industry. The EIQ was also shared with the administrative line ministry. Only the domestic industry has filed a response to the EIQ. l. A list of all interested parties that registered themselves within the prescribed timeline was uploaded on the website. All registered interested parties were directed to circulate the non-confidential version of all their submissions in the present proceedings with all other interested parties. m. In view of the comments filed by the interested parties regarding the scope of the product under consideration and PCN methodology, the Authority held a meeting with the interested parties on 29th November 2024 to discuss the issues raised in the comments filed by the parties. Pursuant to the discussions held with the interested parties and the submissions filed, the Authority notified the product scope and PCN methodology for these proceedings vide its notice dated 11 December 2024 (‘PUC Notice’). It was clarified in the notice that the product scope notified therein was for the purposes of defining the scope of the investigation, and any requests for exclusion made during the course of the investigation, properly substantiated, would be duly considered in the final findings. The notice was published on the website of the DGTR. n. In accordance with Rule 6(6), the Authority provided an opportunity to the interested parties to present their views orally in a hearing held on 8th July 2025. The parties presenting their views in the oral hearing were directed to make written submissions of the views expressed orally, followed by rejoinder submissions. o. In accordance with Rule 6(8), wherever an interested party has refused access to or has otherwise not provided necessary information in a timely manner during the course of the present proceedings, or has significantly impeded the investigation, the Authority has considered such parties as non-cooperative and recorded the findings on the basis of the facts available. p. In accordance with Rule 7, information provided by the interested parties on a confidential basis was examined by the Authority with regard to the sufficiency of the confidentiality claimed. On being satisfied, the Authority has accepted the confidentiality claims, wherever warranted, and such information has been considered as confidential and not disclosed to other interested parties. Wherever possible, parties providing information on confidential basis were directed to provide a non confidential summary of the information filed on confidential basis. q. In accordance with Rule 8, the Authority conducted verification of the data provided by the applicant and other interested parties to the extent considered necessary for the present proceedings. The Authority has considered the verified data of the interested parties in its analysis in the present case. r. The Authority calculated the non-injurious price (NIP) for the product under consideration so as to ascertain whether duties lower than the dumping margin would be sufficient to remedy the injury being suffered by the domestic industry. The NIP has been calculated based on the optimum cost of production and cost to produce & sell the domestic like article in India, based on the information furnished by the applicant and having regard to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). s. The Authority examined the issues raised, information provided, and submissions made by the interested parties during the course of the proceedings, to the extent they were supported by evidence and considered relevant to the present purposes, in making the final finding. t. A disclosure statement containing the essential facts of the investigation which formed the basis of the final findings was issued to the interested parties on 17th September 2025 and the interested parties were allowed time to comment on the same. The comments to disclosure statement received from the interested parties have been considered, to the extent found relevant, non-repetitive and supported with evidence in this final findings notification. u. *** represents information furnished by a party on confidential basis and so considered by the Authority under the Rules. v. The exchange rates adopted by the Authority for the present investigation is 1$ = Rs 83.69. B. PRODUCT UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LIKE ARTICLE B.1 Submissions of the other interested parties. 2. The other interested parties submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under consideration, like article and PCN methodology: a. The product scope, as notified in the initiation notification, refers to only the bale form of NBR. It should be clarified that NBR in powder and liquid forms is not included in the product scope. In previous investigations concerning this product, latex and powder forms of NBR were excluded from the product scope. b. It should be clarified if certain grades, such as KNB1845, which have ACN content beyond the specified range of 25-42%, are included inside the scope of the product under consideration. c. Goods produced by KSRP differ from the goods produced by the domestic industry in key respects. Due to the longer transportation times for imported goods, the colour of the product may change, which may result in a price reduction if the colour of the product at the time of delivery does not match the customer’s requirements. d. The domestic industry produces goods via low-temperature polymerisation (LTP) process only. Sibur produces goods via the high-temperature polymerisation (HTP) process. Hot-polymerized NBR and cold-polymerized NBR both cater to distinct end- use applications due to their differences in polymerization temperatures and other mechanical properties. e. LTP NBR is valued more highly by the market and hence commands a higher price point. Therefore, due to the difference in prices, a fair comparison is not possible. f. The Authority has recognised in previous investigations that NBR is sold in different grades, based on ACN content and Mooney viscosity. The Authority identified three grades: Low, Medium and High which have different ACN content. g. PCNs have been formulated based on ACN content only. Another important factor affecting pricing is Mooney viscosity, which has an inverse relation with the price of NBR. It is a critical factor affecting price of NBR, which needs to be taken into account for comparison of different grades. h. Sibur primarily exports grades with ACN content below 35%, whereas the domestic industry primarily manufactures grades with higher ACN content. B.2. Submissions of the domestic industry. 3. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regards to the scope of the product under consideration and like article: a. The scope of the product under consideration in the application is the same as the product scope determined in previous investigations concerning this product. b. The domestic industry has produced like article to the imported product. c. The domestic industry does not object to exclusion of liquid NBR, powder NBR and oil-extended NBR made with the addition of non-DOP plasticisers. d. The domestic industry does not object to the exclusion of grades with ACN content beyond the defined range, that is, 25% to 42%. e. Differences in production process do not ipso facto warrant exclusion of a form or grade from the product scope. NBR produced by both LTP and HTP is eventually put to the same end use. f. NBR produced by both HTP and LTP are technically and commercially substitutable. Import data shows that the same consumers are purchasing both types of NBR. g. The domestic industry manufactures and sells all grades of the product, including with ACN content below 35%. h. PCNs were not formulated in previous investigations concerning this product. The domestic industry understands that other interested parties want PCNs to be formulated based on ACN content. The domestic industry does not object to this in principle. B.3. Examination by the Authority. 4. At the stage of initiation, the product under consideration was defined as under 3. The product under consideration in the present application is Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) in bale form with ACN content (Bound Acrylonitrile %) between 25% to 42%, specifically excluding Carboxylated, Hydrogenated and Oil extended NBR bales. 5. The initiation notification invited all interested parties to file their comments on the product scope and PCN methodology. within 30 days from the initiation notification, which was extended upon the request of the parties. The Authority notes that various interested parties requested exclusion of certain forms of the product, as well as confirmation regarding the exclusion of certain grades, which are: a. Powder NBR b. Liquid NBR c. Latex NBR d. NBR with ACN content less than 25% e. NBR with ACN content greater than 42% f. NVC NBR 6. Based on the comments filed by the interested parties, in the PUC Notice, the product scope for the purpose of filing of response and the investigation was defined as follows: The product under consideration in the present investigation is Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) in bale form with ACN content (Bound Acrylonitrile %) between 25% to 42%. Following NBR are excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. 1. Carboxylated NBR 2. Hydrogenated NBR 3. Powder NBR 4. Liquid NBR 5. Oil extended NBR 6. Latex NBR 7. NBR with ACN content less than 25% 8. NBR with ACN content more than 42% 9. NVC NBR 7. Subsequent to the PUC-PCN notice, additional submissions were made by certain interested parties regarding product scope and PCN methodology in the written submissions and rejoinder submissions filed after the oral hearing. All submissions made by the interested parties, to the extent considered relevant, have been recorded and examined herein. 8. The participating producer from Russia and its related importer in India have requested for exclusion of HTP (High-temperature polymerisation) NBR. The Authority notes that it is settled practice of the Authority that two articles do not become unlike article simply due to differences in their respective production processes. Therefore, the mere fact that NBR can be produced via two processes does not imply of two distinct products, unless it is established that the two are not technically and commercially substitutable. 9. The Authority notes that the interested parties requesting exclusion of HTP-NBR have submitted that LTP NBR commands a higher price point than HTP-NBR. No evidence or data has been submitted in support of this. Notwithstanding, the Authority considers that a mere difference in prices does not lead to commercial non-substitutability. 10. The Authority also notes that the interested parties requesting exclusion of HTP NBR have made some submissions regarding the technical differences between HTP and LTP NBR, including differences in polymer structure, tear strength, elastic recovery etc. However, the Authority notes that these submissions have not been adequately elaborated upon or supported with evidence. In the first instance, the Authority notes that the interested parties have not provided any evidence regarding the existence of these purported differences. 11. More fundamentally, the Authority considers that there is no material on record indicating why these specific parameters are of relevance in determining technical substitutability. Such an analysis is important as two goods may differ on certain parameters but still be wholly or partially substitutable. The interested parties have not advanced any submissions or evidence indicating that these parameters affect qualities of the product desired by the general consumers of the product, or that use cases for the product are defined by consumers based on these parameters, or that differences on these parameters significantly influence purchasing decisions of consumers. 12. Further, the Authority notes that as per the ruling of the CESTAT in Merino Panels v Designated Authority (2015), for two goods to be deemed technically substitutable, it is not necessary that the goods must be completely interchangeable in all use cases for all consumers. As long as the products have overlaps in their uses, they are considered like articles. The Authority notes that the interested parties have not advanced any submissions or evidence indicating that there is no overlap in the uses for HTP and LTP NBR. 13. Further, the Authority notes that the domestic industry has submitted that NBR produced by either production process leads to the creation of the same product, and that LTP and HTP NBR are technically and commercially substitutable. The domestic industry has submitted that consumers have procured material interchangeably from Russia, which supplies LTP NBR, and other subject countries and the domestic industry, which supply HTP NBR, which establishes that they are being used substitutably by users. The Authority has examined transaction-wise import data from DG Systems, which shows that the same consumers are importing both HTP and LTP NBR. The Authority notes that it is indicative of substitutability, especially in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. 14. Therefore, the Authority considers that the request for exclusion of HTP NBR is not supported by the evidence on record and thus does not consider it appropriate to exclude HTP NBR from the product scope. 15. Certain interested parties have also submitted that they primarily export NBR with ACN content lower than 35%, whereas the domestic industry primarily produces and sells NBR with ACN content over 35%. The Authority examined the verified data of the domestic industry and notes that the domestic industry has made sales in commercial quantities of all grades, including NBR with ACN content lower than 35%. Therefore, the assertion of the interested parties is factually incorrect. 16. In view of the foregoing, regarding the product scope, the Authority concludes that the product scope, as defined in the PUC Notice, is appropriate, which is reproduced below: The product under consideration in the present investigation is Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) in bale form with ACN content (Bound Acrylonitrile %) between 25% to 42%. Following NBR are excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. 1. Carboxylated NBR 2. Hydrogenated NBR 3. Powder NBR 4. Liquid NBR 5. Oil extended NBR 6. Latex NBR 7. NBR with ACN content less than 25% 8. NBR with ACN content more than 42% 9. NVC NBR 17. The product under consideration is imported under the HS code 40025900. 18. Regarding the PCN methodology, it has been submitted by the interested parties that the Authority has not taken Mooney viscosity into consideration for formulation of PCNs. It has been submitted that Mooney viscosity is a ‘critical’ parameter affecting cost and price comparability. However, the Authority notes that no evidence has been extended regarding how Mooney viscosity affects cost and price comparability, which is the primary basis for formulation of PCNs. Viscosity is simply a physical characteristic. A physical characteristic is achieved as the result of a process. To warrant formulation of PCNs based on a physical characteristic, a clear link needs to be drawn between the physical characteristic, the excess production efforts/resources required specifically for achieving that physical characteristic, and the costs incurred. Since no such information has been placed on record, the Authority does not consider it appropriate to include Mooney viscosity as a factor in the PCN methodology. 19. Therefore, in absence of such information, the Authority does not consider it appropriate to include Mooney viscosity as a parameter in the PCN methodology. 20. In view of the foregoing, regarding formulation of PCNs, the Authority concludes that the PCN methodology as defined in the PUC Notice, is appropriate, which is reproduced herein: | NBR Category | ACN Content | PCN Code | |--------------|-----------------------|----------| | Low | 25% to 30% | L | | Medium | Above 30% upto 35% | M | | High | Above 35% upto 42% | H | 21. The goods produced by the domestic industry and the goods imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of characteristics such as physical & chemical characteristics, manufacturing process & technology, functions & uses, product specifications, pricing, distribution & marketing and tariff classification of the goods. The two are technically and commercially substitutable and consumers can use them interchangeably. Therefore, the Authority concludes that the product produced by the domestic industry is like article to the imported product. C. SCOPE OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY AND STANDING. C.1 Submission made by the other interested parties. 22. The other interested parties have not made any submission. C.2. Submission made by the domestic industry. 23. The domestic industry has submitted as follows: a. Apxotex is the sole producer of the domestic like article in India. b. It has not imported the subject goods from the subject countries. c. It is not related to any producer of the subject goods in the subject countries or importer of the subject goods in India C.3. Examination by the Authority. 24. Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules defines the domestic industry as below: (b) “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in such case the term 'domestic industry ’ may be construed as referring to the rest of the producers ” 25. The Authority notes that the present application has been filed by Apcotex Industries Limited. The applicant has submitted that it is the only producer of the domestic like article in India. During the course of the investigation, no averments have been made to the contrary. Considering the information on record, the Authority infers that the applicant accounts for entire Indian production. 26. Apcotex has certified that it has not imported the product under consideration. The Authority has examined the transaction-wise data obtained from DG Systems and found that there are no imports of the product under consideration by Apcotex. 27. In view of the foregoing, the Authority concludes that: a. The applicant, Apcotex Industries Limited, constitutes ‘domestic industry’ within the meaning of Rule 2(b). b. Apcotex satisfies the requirement of standing as prescribed in Rule 5(3). D. CONFIDENTIALITY AND MISCALLENOUS ISSUES. D.1 Submission made by the other interested parties. 28. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to confidentiality claims and related issues: a. The domestic industry has not provided a write-up of the broad stage-wise manufacturing process. b. The domestic industry has not disclosed the calculation methodology for its claimed normal value in the application. All information, including cost of raw materials consumed, cost of captive input/utilities, bank charges etc have been claimed confidential. c. The domestic industry has not disclosed its quantification of the impact of the requested anti-dumping duties on the downstream products. d. The domestic industry has claimed excessive confidentiality regarding the details of its manufacturing plants. e. The domestic industry has claimed details of its proposed capacity expansion as confidential, whereas the expansion has already been announced and details are available in the public domain. f. The domestic industry is a habitual user of anti-dumping duties. There have been multiple investigations concerning imports of the present product under consideration, and duties were in force against its imports from various countries for almost 25 years, from 1995 till 2020. If duties are imposed again, it would lead to duties assuming almost a permanent character. g. In 2020, the Authority recommended extension of the anti-dumping duties on imports of the product under consideration from Korea RP. In 2021, the Authority recommended imposition of anti-dumping duties on imports from China PR, European Union, Japan and Russia. However, the Ministry of Finance concluded the domestic industry does not require further protection in the form of anti-dumping duties and did not accept either of these recommendations. h. The domestic industry is sufficiently protected from import competition by the Basic Customs Duty on imports of the product, which is 10%. i. The domestic industry has misled the Authority regarding the anti-dumping investigation against KPC in the US. Duties were not imposed in the US due to negative findings on injury. D.2. Submission made by the domestic industry. 29. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regards to confidentiality claims and related issues: a. Normal value has been calculated based on the cost of applicant. These constitute business proprietary information and thus have not been disclosed. b. The domestic industry has quantified the impact of the requested duties and duly disclosed it in the non-confidential version of its response to the Economic Interest Questionnaire. c. On the submission that the manufacturing process has been claimed confidential, the Authority has permitted exporters in several previous investigations to claim details of manufacturing plants as confidential. However, the domestic industry does not object to the disclosure and the same has been disclosed. d. On the submission that the exact figures of capacity expansion have bene claimed confidential, the proposed capacity expansion quoted in the media reports are different from the actual figures. However, the domestic industry does not object to this request for disclosure and the same has been disclosed. e. As regards the habitual nature of the domestic industry for seeking anti-dumping duty, in the nine investigations conducted into imports of this product, the Authority issued positive final findings and recommended imposition of measures in all of them. Therefore, there is a history of anti-dumping duties on this product because the subject exporters habitually engage in dumping. f. While the Ministry of Finance did not accept the two most recent recommendations for imposition of anti-dumping duties on this product, there is nothing on public record to indicate that the Ministry of Finance concluded that the domestic industry did not require any further protection. g. On the submission that the imports of the product also enjoy basis customs duty, as per the calculations of the domestic industry, the injury margin is positive for the subject imports, indicating that the Basic Customs Duty does not offset the trade distortive effects of the unfairly priced imports. h. KPC habitually engages in dumping in various international markets, as evidenced by positive findings of dumping in investigations carried out in the US (2022) and China (2018, 2024). Further, the dumping margins determined for KPC in the US and China are significantly higher than the dumping margin determined for KPC in India. i. The quantum of duties imposed in India is significantly lower than the duties imposed in the other jurisdictions. The domestic industry believes that due to the low quantum of duties, the full extent of trade and market distortion created by these unfairly priced imports was never remedied. D.3. Examination by the Authority. D.3.1 Appropriateness of confidentiality. 30. With regard to confidentiality of information, Rule 7 provides as follows: Rule 7: Confidential information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (1), (2), (3) and (7) of rule 7, subrule (2) of rule 14, subrule (4) of rule 17 and subrule (3) of rule 19 copies of applications received under subrule (1) of rule 6 or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorisation of the party providing such information. (2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish nonconfidential summary thereof in sufficient details to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the confidential information and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (2), if the designated authority, is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorise its disclosure in generalised or summary form, it may disregard such information. 31. The Authority notes that through its letter dated 20 May 2025, the domestic industry has complied with certain requests for disclosure. 32. The Authority notes that the domestic industry has relied on its own data for certain cost elements in determination of its claimed normal value in the application. Details relating to cost of utilities, conversion costs etc are confidential for any business. The claimed normal value has been disclosed as range, in accordance with the prescribed requirements. Therefore, the Authority considers that the disclosure of the calculation of normal value does not suffer from excessive confidentiality. 33. The Authority concludes that there are no outstanding issues of excessive confidentiality claims in the submissions filed in the present proceedings. D.3.2 Appropriateness of imposition of duties in light of previous history of measures. 34. Interested parties opposing duties have highlighted that imports of the present product under consideration have been subject to anti-dumping duties since 1995 till 2020. Therefore, given the long history of duties on this product, they argue that imposition of fresh measures pursuant to the present investigation would be inappropriate. One of the interested parties has claimed that the Ministry of Finance has concluded that the domestic industry has had sufficient protection and further protection in the form of anti-dumping duties is no longer required, which is the reason for non-acceptance of previous recommendations for imposition of duties. The Authority notes that of the nine investigations (inclusive of both original investigations and sunset reviews) undertaken so far, all of them resulted in affirmative findings of dumping and consequent injury. The domestic industry has submitted that affirmative findings in previous cases indicate habitual and consistent dumping by exporters. 35. The Authority notes that in an anti-dumping investigation, the primary mandate of the Authority is to assess whether trade remedial measures are required in light of dumped imports and consequent injury to the domestic industry. India, being a rule of law country and a responsible adherent of the WTO disciplines, imposes trade remedial measures only when needed and only to the extent necessary. The domestic industry has highlighted that various jurisdictions have imposed measures for a substantially longer period, and submitted as follows. | SN | Jurisdiction | Case | Date of | Date of | Term of | |----|--------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------|----------------|-------------| | | | | imposition | expiry | Duties | | 1 | India | Melamine from China | 16-Nov-04 | 01-Oct-21 | 16 years, | | | | | | | 10 | | | | | | | months | | 2 | India | Float Glass from China | 12-Nov-03 | 06-Feb-21 | 17 years, | | | | | | | 2 months | | 3 | USA | Persulfates from China | 07-Jul-97 | 19-Feb-30 | 32 years, | | | | | | | 7 months | | 4 | USA | Brass Sheets and Strips from | 06-Mar-87 | 03-Apr-28 | 41 years | | | | France, Germany and Italy | | | | | 5 | EU | Steel Ropes and Cables from | 17-Aug-99 | 06-Jun-29 | 29 years, | | | | China | | | 9 months | | 6 | Korea | Stainless Steel Bars from | 30-Jul-04 | 21-Jan-24 | 19 years, | | | | China | | | 5 months | | 7 | Brazil | Carbon Steel Seamless Steel | 20-Oct-99 | 23-Jul-28 | 28 years, | | | | Line Pipes from China and | | | 9 months | | | | Romania | | | | Source: Rejoinder submissions filed by the domestic industry. Original source: WTO Trade Remedies Data Portal. 36. Authority notes that as per Section 9(A)(5) of the Act and Rule 23 of the Rules, there is no restriction on the maximum period for which the duty can remain in force. The only condition necessary for extension of duties is whether cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry. The anti-dumping duty can be imposed for a period as long as necessary to counteract dumping and injury. 37. The Authority also notes the contention of the interested parties regarding non-imposition of duties by Ministry of Finance despite recommendations in the last two investigations concerning this product. The interested parties have made definitive submissions regarding the reasons for such non-imposition. However, the Authority notes that the interested parties have not advanced any evidence in support of this submission. The Authority notes that there is nothing on record of the present case or in the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance vide Notification F. No. CBIC-19034/97/2021-TO(TRU-I)-CBEC to support the contention of the interested parties. 38. In other products such as plastic processing machine, Ministry of Finance did not impose the measures in that period, but the DGTR has given a positive recommendation recently which has been accepted by the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the Authority considered that there is no maximum permissible duration for the imposition of trade remedial measures and that there is no inappropriateness in imposition anti-dumping duties pursuant to the present proceedings due to the previous history of duties. D.3.3 Appropriateness of imposition of anti-dumping duties in light of existing basic customs duties. 39. Interested parties opposing duties have argued that the existing basic customs duties on imports of the product under consideration offers sufficient protection to the domestic industry from import competition, and hence anti-dumping duties are not required. 40. The Authority notes that customs duties and anti-dumping duties serve different purposes and thus cannot be equated. Notwithstanding, the Authority has compared the non-injurious price of the domestic industry with the landed price which takes into account basis customs duty. Such a comparison has revealed a positive injury margin for all subject countries. This demonstrates that the basic customs duty does not negate the trade distortive and injurious effects of the subject imports. D.3.4 Appropriateness of imposition of duties in light of the demand-supply gap in the domestic market 41. The interested parties opposing duties have argued that due to the demand and supply gap in the country, anti-dumping duties should not be imposed. 42. In DSM Idemitsu v Designated Authority (2000), CESTAT held as follows: - 11. […] It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that Domestic Industry was not in a position to meet the market requirements and hence, Japan came to the rescue of needy consumers in supplying the requisite material. If the exporters wanted to supply the goods to meet the requirement in Indian market that could be done by exporting the requirements at a price equivalent to normal value but not at a dumped value and to capture the market, as it was rightly pointed out by the counsel for the Designated Authority. 43. In the above case, CESTAT has held that the existence of a demand and supply gap is not a justification for unfair and predatory trade practices such as dumping and therefore, the existence of a demand and supply gap does not preclude imposition of trade remedial measures. This principle has been consistently applied by the Authority in various cases. The Authority notes that trade remedial measures are not a barrier to trade, but rather a corrective mechanism for distortions in the market caused by certain unfair trade practices. Therefore, exporters remain free to export to India, but at fair prices. In fact, this is especially important for industries where the domestic demand exceeds domestic production capacity, as unfair imports prevent growth and development of the industry and prevent additional investments and expansions. 44. The Authority also notes that 18% of the imports in the period of investigation were from non-subject countries. Therefore, the Authority considers that there are other sources of supply for the product and therefore supply of the product under consideration will not be impacted by imposition of trade remedial measures. D.3.4Other miscellaneous issues 45. Interested parties opposing duties have argued that the domestic industry has misled the Authority, and that duties were not imposed in the US pursuant to negative findings of injury. The Authority notes that a finding relating to injury is a factor specific to the domestic industry. Therefore, the fact that the US industry of NBR was not injured in 2021 and consequently duties were not imposed has no bearing on the present case. E. DETERMINATION OF NORMAL VALUE, NET EXPORT PRICE AND DUMPING MARGIN E.1 Submission made by the other interested parties. 46. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to determination of normal value, net export price and dumping margin: a. In the application, normal value has been constructed based on the cost data of the domestic industry. This is inappropriate given the differences in the production environment and market conditions and raw material prices. Therefore, there was no evidence of dumping at the time of initiation. b. On the submission of the domestic industry on dumping in USA, the US authorities, pursuant to their investigation, arrived at a negative finding on injury and therefore duties were ultimately not imposed. In China, in the original investigation (2018), the MOFCOM imposed adverse facts against KPC, which led to escalated margins and duties. In the sunset review (2024), MOFCOM determined a de minimis margin for KPC. However, duties were continued at 12% on grounds of likelihood. c. Sales of KPC are not at losses and have been made at profits in both Korea (home market) and India (export market), as submitted in Appendix 8 of its exporter questionnaire response. d. KPC has always cooperated with the Authority to the fullest extent in all previous investigations. Cost and sales data submitted by KPC, subject to certain adjustments, have been accepted by the Authority and margins determined based on its data. This shows that KPC’s data is reliable. e. If financial expenses (e.g., interest on borrowings) are included in SG&A and thus in the cost of production, then financial income, interest income from short-term operational funds, must also be deducted to ensure symmetry and fairness. Failing to deduct such income results in an asymmetrical treatment, artificially inflating cost of production and distorting the dumping margin. f. KPC purchases acrylonitrile exclusively from unrelated third-party suppliers at arm’s- length prices. These are the actual purchase prices recorded in the company’s accounting system and represent the most accurate and reliable measure of acrylonitrile consumption cost. A comparison with import statistics may be misleading due to differences in product grades, contract terms, and timing of purchases. g. KPC purchased most of its butadiene requirement from unrelated third-party suppliers at market prices. A comparison with import statistics may be misleading due to differences in product grades, contract terms, and timing of purchases. h. A small quantity of the total quantity consumed was ‘reprocessed butadiene’, which is recovered as a by-product during production at the plant. Butadiene was not captively produced during the period of investigation. i. Power has been procured from Hanju at market prices, a contention which was also accepted by the US DOC in its investigation. j. KPC has purchased most of its steam from Hanju, and purchases have been made at market prices. Only a small amount is steam is produced captively. The valuation method and amounts for these by-products were already reported in Exhibit G-7 (Valuation of By-products). k. Steam generated from these by-products is valued in direct linkage with the SMP and SLP prices purchased from Hanju, thereby ensuring consistency with market-based prices. l.Consumption factor reported were derived directly from KPC’s books of accounts and production records. Verification of consumption norms is not a requirement under the law and the domestic industry cannot be allowed to introduce an intrusive and onerous standard. E.2. Submission made by the domestic industry. 47. The domestic industry has submitted as follows with regards to normal value, net export price and dumping margin: a. As stated in para 48 of the application, the domestic industry considered the raw material prices in the subject country in its computation of the constructed normal value and dumping margin for each subject country. b. Adjustments to normal value, as presented in Annexure 3.4, were based on the best available information with the domestic industry. The domestic industry cannot be expected to have detailed knowledge of the ‘production environment and market conditions’ in each subject country. c. Market behaviour of KPC shows a consistent pattern of dumping of the product in India and other markets. In the five investigations undertaken by the Authority against imports of the product from Korea, a positive determination of dumping by KPC was made in every investigation. d. The quantum of dumping determined by the Authority has been historically low. The dumping margin quantified by the Authority is significantly lower, in both absolute USD/MT and percentage terms, than the dumping margins determined by US DOC and MOFCOM. e. NEP of KPC is significantly below the cost of sales of the domestic industry. The cost structure of the domestic industry and KPC cannot be materially different. KPC has stated that it is sourcing butadiene and acrylonitrile at market prices. If true, cost of KPC should be in the same range as the domestic industry and therefore, either export sales of KPC are at losses, which is highly unlikely, or its costs are under-reported. f. If home market sales price of KPC are below its NEP, this implies that either they are at losses and must be disregarded from normal value determination, or that costs or under-reported. g. KPC has a history of claiming inappropriate adjustments to its cost and sales price, which were not accepted by the Authority in the past. h. Financial income from activities unrelated to the product under consideration cannot be deducted from the cost of production of the product under consideration. KPC had claimed such an offset before the US DOC, which was rejected. If such an offset has been claimed presently, it should be rejected. i. Acrylonitrile cost reported by KPC in its response should be compared with the relevant entries in its books of accounts. The reported cost should also be compared with the import prices of acrylonitrile into Korea to assess whether the reported costs are accurate. j. Butadiene cost reported by KPC in its response should verified against the relevant entries in its books of accounts. k. KPC has admitted that power for its NBR plant is procured from Hanju, a district energy company affiliated to KPC. Therefore, the Authority must compare the price at which power was transferred to KPC by Hanju to prices of power procured by KPC from other sources. l. In addition to power, steam is a major utility cost. It is understood that for production of NBR, KPC utilises steam that is generated as a by-product in the production of other merchandise. The price at which steam is transferred must be examined. In case transfer price is claimed as zero on account of the steam used being a by-product, it must be rejected, as even in such cases, there are associated expenses such as fuel inputs, maintenance of the generating equipment, handling, and transfer infrastructure m. Consumption factor reported by KPC for acrylonitrile and butadiene should be compared with the consumption factor reported by other producers, including other participating exporters and the domestic industry. n. Consumption factor reported by KPC for power should be compared with the consumption factor reported by other producers, including other participating producers and the domestic industry. Any substantial differences in the absence of significant operational differences would merit investigation. o. Since the previous investigation concerning imports from Korea, the increase in the cost of sales of the domestic industry has been steeper than the increase in the NEP of KPC. Further, in the last investigation, KPC was producing some portion of its raw material inputs captively, which it has claimed is not the case anymore. Therefore, it stands to reason that the dumping margin would be higher than the dumping margin determined in the previous investigation. E.3. Examination by the Authority. 48. Section 9A(1)(c) defines normal value in relation to an article as: (c) “normal value”, in relation to an article, means - (i) the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when [destined for consumption] in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or (ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either - (a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or [territory to] an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or (b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6) : Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin. 49. The Authority notes the following producers and exporters of the subject have filed exporter questionnaire responses in the present proceedings: a. Kumho Petrochemicals Co Ltd (Korea) b. Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France SAS (EU), along with its related trader ARLANXEO TSRC (Nantong) Chemical Industrial Co. Ltd. c. Krasnoyarsk Synthetic Rubber Plant, Public Joint-Stock Company (Russia), along with its related traders PJSC Sibur Holding (hereinafter referred to as ‘Sibur’), SIBUR International Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd and SIBUR Istanbul Uluslararasi Ticaret Limited Sirketi. A.3.1Normal value and net export price for China PR a. Normal value for China PR 50. In accordance with the note to para 8 of Annexure I of the Rules, at the stage of initiation, the Authority proceeded with the presumption that China is a non-market economy. With regard to determination of normal value for a non-market economy, paras 7 and 8 of Annexure I provide as follows: [7. In case of imports from non-market economy countries, normal value shall be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, or the price from such a third country to other countries, including India, or where it is not possible, on any other reasonable basis, including the price actually paid or payable in India for the like product, duly adjusted if necessary, to include a reasonable profit margin. An appropriate market economy third country shall be selected by the designated authority in a reasonable manner [keeping in view the level of development of the Country concerned and the product in question] and due account shall be taken of any reliable information made available at the time of the selection. Account shall also be taken within time limits; where appropriate, of the investigation if any made in similar matter in respect of any other market economy third country. The parties to the investigation shall be informed without unreasonable delay the aforesaid selection of the market economy third country and shall be given a reasonable period of time to offer their comments.] [8. (1) The term “non-market economy country” means any country which the designated authority determines as not operating on market principles of cost or pricing structures, so that sales of merchandise in such country do not reflect the fair value of the merchandise, in accordance with the criteria specified in sub-paragraph (3). (2) There shall be a presumption that any country that has been determined to be, or has been treated as, a nonmarket economy country for purposes of an anti-dumping investigation by the designated authority or by the competent authority of any WTO member country during the three year period preceding the investigation is a non market economy country : Provided, however, that the non-market economy country or the concerned firms from such country may rebut such a presumption by providing information and evidence to the designated authority that establishes that such country is not a non-market economy country on the basis of the criteria specified in sub-paragraph (3). (3) The designated authority shall consider in each case the following criteria as to whether : (a) the decisions of concerned firms in such country regarding prices, costs and inputs, including raw materials, cost of technology and labour, output, sales and investment, are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand and without significant State interference in this regard, and whether costs of major inputs, substantially reflect market values; (b) the production costs and financial situation of such firms are subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, in particular in relation to depreciation of assets other write-offs, barter trade and payment via compensation of debts; (c) such firms are subject to bankruptcy and property laws which guarantee legal certainty and stability for the operation of the firms, and (d) the exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate : Provided, however, that where it is shown by sufficient evidence in writing on the basis of the criteria specified in this paragraph that market conditions prevail for one or more such firms subject to anti-dumping investigations, the designated authority may apply the principles set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 instead of the principles set out in paragraph 7 and in this paragraph.] [(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraph (2), the designated authority may treat such country as market economy country which, on the basis of the latest detailed evaluation of relevant criteria, which includes the criteria specified in sub-paragraph (3), has been, by publication of such evaluation in a public document, treated or determined to be treated as a market economy country for the purposes of anti-dumping investigations, by a country which is a Member of the World Trade Organisation.] 51. The Authority, upon initiation, advised the producers/exporters in China PR to respond to the notice of initiation and provide information on whether their data/information could be adopted for normal value determination. The Authority sent copies of the market economy treatment/supplementary questionnaire to all the known producers/ exporters in China PR to provide relevant information in this regard. 52. Article 15 of the Protocol on Accession of China PR to the WTO provides as follows: 15. Price Comparability in Determining Subsidies and Dumping Article VI of the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement") and the SCM Agreement shall apply in proceedings involving imports of Chinese origin into a WTO Member consistent with the following: (a) In determining price comparability under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China based on the following rules: (i) If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation in determining price comparability; (ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product. (b) In proceedings under Parts II, III and V of the SCM Agreement, when addressing subsidies described in Articles 14(a), 14(b), 14(c) and 14(d), relevant provisions of the SCM Agreement shall apply; however, if there are special difficulties in that application, the importing WTO Member may then use methodologies for identifying and measuring the subsidy benefit which take into account the possibility that prevailing terms and conditions in China may not always be available as appropriate benchmarks. In applying such methodologies, where practicable, the importing WTO Member should adjust such prevailing terms and conditions before considering the use of terms and conditions prevailing outside China. (c) The importing WTO Member shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (a) to the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and shall notify methodologies used in accordance with subparagraph (b) to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. (d) Once China has established, under the national law of the importing WTO Member, that it is a market economy, the provisions of subparagraph (a) shall be terminated provided that the importing Member's national law contains market economy criteria as of the date of accession. In any event, the provisions of subparagraph (a)(ii) shall expire 15 years after the date of accession. In addition, should China establish, pursuant to the national law of the importing WTO Member, that market economy conditions prevail in a particular industry or sector, the non market economy provisions of subparagraph (a) shall no longer apply to that industry or sector. 53. The Authority notes that while the provisions of Article 15 (a)(ii) of China PR’s Accession Protocol have expired with effect from 11th December 2016, the provision under Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement read with an obligation under 15(a)(i) of the Accession Protocol require criterion stipulated in Para 8 of Annexure I of Anti-Dumping Rules to be satisfied through the information/data to be provided in the supplementary questionnaire for claiming MET status. The Authority notes that no producer or exporter from China PR submitted market economy treatment or supplementary questionnaire response. Therefore, the normal value computation for these producers/exporters is required to be determined in terms of provisions of Para 7 of Annexure- 1 of Anti-Dumping Rules. 54. It is noted that paragraph 7 of Annexure-I to the AD Rules stipulates three methods of constructing the normal value for Non-Market Economies: a. on the basis of price or constructed value in a market economy third country; b. export price from a third country to other countries, including India; and c. on any other reasonable basis. 55. The Authority notes that under the provisions of paragraph 7 of Annexure I to the Rules, the normal value must first be determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a surrogate country, or the price of the exports from such country to other countries, including India. 56. The Authority notes that interested parties have not placed any material on record to permit determination of normal value based on the price or constructed value in a market economy third country. Therefore, the first and second method is unpracticable. 57. Therefore, the Authority has considered the normal value for China based on the last methodology which is price paid or payable in India. The normal value has been calculated based on the cost of production in India with reasonable additions for margin. b. Net export price for China PR 58. The Authority notes that no producer from China PR has participated in the present investigation. Therefore, the Authority has determined the net export price for China PR based on facts available. To determine the net export price of China PR, the Authority has considered the export price as per DG Systems data, and has made adjustments, as necessary. A.3.2Normal value and net export price for the European Union a. Arlanxeo Emulsion Rubber France SAS (EU), along with its related trader ARLANXEO TSRC (Nantong) Chemical Industrial Co. Ltd Normal value 59. The Authority notes that Arlanxeo has sold 20,157 MT of subject goods in its domestic market, compared to 617 MT of exports of the subject goods to India. The exporter has claimed that all domestic sales are to unrelated customers. Therefore, the Authority notes that the volume of sales in the domestic market is sufficient to permit a comparison with its export price to India. 60. The Authority considered whether the sales in the domestic market were in the ordinary course of trade. For each PCN, the Authority compared the cost of production of the domestic like article with the selling price for each sale. The Authority notes that for High and Low PCNs, less than 80% but more than 20% sales were profitable sales. It is seen that for M PCN, less than 20% sales for profitable sales. 61. Therefore, the Authority has determined the normal value for High and Low PCN based on selling price of profitable sales. For Medium PCN, the normal value has been determined based on the cost of production of the PCN with addition of reasonable profits. The Authority has considered the profit margin for profitable sales to calculate the quantum reasonable profit. 62. The Authority examined the domestic selling prices reported by Kumho and the price adjustments claimed. The normal value determined for this product is stated in the dumping margin table. Net export price 63. The Authority examined the domestic selling prices reported by Kumho and the price adjustments claimed. The normal value determined for this product is stated in the dumping margin table. b. Other producers and exporters from the European Union 64. The Authority has considered producers and exporters not participating in this investigation as non-cooperative and accordingly, the normal value and net export price for such producers and exporters has been determined based on facts available. A.3.3 Normal value and net export price for Korea RP a. Kumho Petrochemicals Co Ltd (KPC) Normal value 65. The Authority notes that KPC has sold *** MT of subject goods in its domestic market, compared to *** MT of exports of the subject goods to India. The exporter has claimed that all domestic sales are to unrelated customers. Therefore, the Authority notes that the volume of sales in the domestic market is sufficient to permit a comparison with its export price to India. 66. The domestic industry has claimed that KPC’s Ulsan facility, where the product under consideration is manufactured, does not have a dedicated utility plant for generation of steam for use in the production of the product under consideration. The domestic industry emphasized that steam being generated as a by-product during production of other products and thereafter consumed in production of a different product must be appropriately valued. This is necessary in order to ensure that costs reported by the company are not only in accordance with the records maintained by the company as per generally accepted accounting principles but also reasonably reflect the costs associated with production and sale of a product. 67. Data of KPC has been examined. It is seen that there are three sources of steam – from affiliated supplier, from unaffiliated supplier and generated in the production of other products. The comparison of prices of the three sources is given below. | Source | Quantity | Price (KRW) | Price (USD) | |-------------------------------------------|----------|-------------|-------------| | From unaffiliated supplier | *** | *** | *** | | From affiliated supplier | *** | *** | *** | | Generated in production process of | *** | *** | *** | | other products | | | | | Steam consumed in PUC | ***, out of which **% is steam generated as a by- | | | product in production of other products. | 68. KPC has explained that this steam is generated during the conversion of scrap butadiene into usable butadiene which is used in the production of NBR. [KPC has attributed the cost differences in steam to variations in the steam pressure. KPC has also claimed the steam from Hanju is used directly in manufacturing and is supplied at a pressure suitable for such operations. In contrast, steam sourced from unrelated supplier—such as at the port—is intended for alternative use and is delivered at a different pressure. No further clarification has been provided on the pressure of different steam and how it affects prices. It has also been claimed that most steam is also purchased from Hanju. The producer has claimed that as with electricity, Hanju’s prices are at arm’s length, and therefore, they should be accepted in the present NBR investigation. Further, it has been claimed captive consumption of steam produced as by-product have been fully and transparently reported. It has been stated that steam/by-product captive consumption included in the manufacturing costs comes from RF-3 and OFF-GAS generated as by-products during the Butadiene reprocessing stage. The steam generated from these by-products is valued in direct linkage with the SMP and SLP prices purchased from Hanju, thereby ensuring consistency with market-based prices]. It is seen that the steam cost reported for captive by product is significantly lower than the steam price reported from the affiliated supplier Hanju and unaffiliated supplier. 69. In its submissions, KPC has claimed that majority of their steam is purchased from Hanju. However, the data on record shows that majority of the steam consumed in the product under consideration is steam generated captively as a by-product. The Authority notes the contradiction between the statements made and the information provided. This contradiction is in addition to mere claim of different pressures of steam, without providing relevant information of different types of steam and the type of steam consumed in the production of the PUC. The data provided by the domestic industry was examined. It was noted that no credit for steam has been reported by the domestic industry. 70. In the disclosure statement issued, the Authority had found that steam cost reported by KPC does not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production of the PUC. Therefore, the Authority had substituted the steam prices as per the purchase price of steam from affiliated supplier. 71. Post the issuance of disclosure statement, KPC has claimed that the volume reported for the captive steam was in KG and the volume reported in the purchased steam was in MT. It has therefore been claimed that contrary to the Authority’s examination, majority of the steam consumed is purchased from affiliated supplier. KPC has also claimed that the instead of captive production of steam, the quantity considered pertains to captive production of fuel input (OFF GAS and RF-3) which are used to produce steam. The table below shows the numbers disclosed to the producer and the information reported by KPC in the comments. | Figures as per KPC | UOM | Quantity | Price | |------------------------------------|-----|----------|----------| | Sources | | (MT) | KRW/MT | | From Unaffiliated Supplier | MT | *** | *** | | From Affiliated Supplier | MT | *** | *** | | RF-3 and OFF GAS used for producing| MT | *** | *** | | steam | | | | | Figures as per disclosure statement| | | | | Steam From Unaffiliated Supplier | MT | *** | *** | | Steam From Affiliated Supplier | MT | *** | *** | | Steam Generated in production process of| MT | *** | *** | | other products | | | | 72. The Authority observes that a review of the exporter questionnaire response filed by KPC shows several inconsistencies regarding the reporting of data and the claim made now relating to captive steam and by-product gases. Nowhere in the questionnaire response has KPC explicitly stated that (a) the quantity reported for captive steam generation is measured in kilograms (KG); (b) the reported figures do not pertain to steam but instead to OFF GAS and RF-3 gases, which are by-products. 73. Upon examining of Appendix 6 and Appendix 8 of the response, the Authority notes that KPC has not disclosed the unit of measurement used for captive steam in these formats. The unit of measurement for OFF GAS and RF-3 gas has been reported in Appendix 10 but it has not been specified how it pertains to the product under consideration or captive steam generation. In the same format, KPC has claimed that the volume reported for all other inputs and utilities including steam purchased from affiliated and unaffiliated entities was in MT and only in case of captive steam, it was in KG. KPC’s claim that the unit of measurement for captive steam is in KG, while steam from other sources is measured in metric tonnes (MT), casts ambiguity over the data reported. The Authority also notes that in the exporter questionnaire response, KPC has not clarified that that quantities reported relate to OFF GAS and RF-3 gases rather than to captive steam. In none of the verification documents submitted by KPC, this has been highlighted. 74. The Authority observes that the producer had not provided the information in the appropriate manner in the prescribed format. This led to significant delay in the investigation process. In such circumstances, the Authority is constrained to consider drawing an adverse inference. However, taking into account that the relevant information was nevertheless present on record, though not filed appropriately, the Authority has decided to accept the submissions made by Kumho. 75. The domestic industry has also claimed that the electricity used by KPC at the Ulsan facility is procured from an affiliated entity, Hanju and has therefore requested detailed scrutiny of the transfer price. The domestic industry has requested comparison of purchase prices from Hanju with purchase prices from unaffiliated suppliers to establish that the transfer pricing is market based. The exporter has claimed that electricity price of Hanju has been as considered as reflective of market price by the Authority of the other jurisdiction. 76. The Authority examined the submissions filed by KPC regarding valuation of steam, electricity and other issues related to the computation of the cost of production. In the present final findings, the Authority has considered the cost of production reported by the exporter, as verified by the Authority during desk verification. 77. The domestic industry contended that KPC has a history of reporting interest expenses after reducing the same for interest income and the Authority has been modifying the same by excluding interest income. Interest expenses have therefore been considered after removing interest income. 78. The Authority considered whether the sales in the domestic market were in the ordinary course of trade. For each PCN, the Authority compared the cost of production based on response filed by the producer and verified by the producer, with the selling price of the like article. The Authority notes that more than 80% of KPC’s total sales were profitable, and therefore, the Authority has considered that the entire domestic sales are in the ordinary course of trade. Therefore, the Authority has considered the total domestic sales in its determination of normal value. 79. The Authority examined the domestic selling prices reported by Kumho and the price adjustments claimed. The normal value determined for this product is stated in the dumping margin table. Net export price 80. The Authority examined the export prices reported by KPC and the price adjustments claimed. The net export price determined for KPC is stated in the dumping margin table. b. Normal value and net export price for other producers and exporters from Korea RP 81. The Authority has considered producers and exporters not participating in this investigation as non-cooperative and accordingly, the normal value and net export price for such producers and exporters has been determined based on facts available. A.3.4 Normal value and net export price for Russia a. Normal value and net export price for PJSC SIBUR Holding, SIBUR Istanbul Uluslararasi Ticaret Limited Sirketi and Krasnoyarsk Synthetic Rubber Plant, Public Joint-Stock Company (KSRP) 82. The Authority notes that PJSC SIBUR Holding has extended a price undertaking to the Authority. As part of this undertaking, the producer has agreed to revise its export prices to India and to provide all reasonable and relevant information that the Designated Authority may consider necessary to monitor compliance with the terms of the undertaking. 83. In accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules (Suspension or Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Price Undertaking), the Designated Authority may suspend or terminate an antidumping investigation if the exporter of the article under investigation furnishes a written undertaking to revise the prices of the product under consideration so as to eliminate the injurious effects of dumping. A copy of the undertaking was circulated to all the interested parties. The Authority had advised the producer to comply with the conditions of Rule 15 and circulate the undertaking. 84. As part of this undertaking, the producer has agreed to revise its export prices to India and to provide all reasonable and relevant information. The domestic industry had filed comments to the undertaking proposal of the producer and have requested revision of the prices. The comments on the undertaking have been accepted by the producer. The producer has filed revised undertaking which has been accepted by the Authority. Upon acceptance of the said price undertaking by the domestic industry, it was further examined by the Authority, and the price undertaking has been accepted in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules. Consequently, the Authority has not determined definitive dumping and injury margins for the producer. 85. The Designated Authority may, suo motu or upon a request from the exporter, the domestic industry, importers, or any other interested party, periodically review the need for the continuation of the undertaking. The terms of the price undertaking shall remain co-terminus with the duration of any anti-dumping duties imposed by the Central Government through the applicable notification and shall be subject to review as provided under the relevant provisions of the Anti-Dumping Rules. b. Normal value and net export price for other producers and exporters from Russia 86. The Authority has considered producers and exporters not participating in this investigation as non-cooperative and accordingly, the normal value and net export price for such producers and exporters has been determined based on facts available. A.3.3 Dumping margin 87. The normal value, export price and dumping margin determined in the present investigation are as follows. | SN | Particulars | UOM | Import volume | Normal value | Net export price | Dumping margin | |----|--------------------------|-------|---------------|--------------|------------------|----------------| | | | | MT | $/MT | $/MT | $/MT | % | Range | | A | Korea | | | | | | | | | 1 | Kumho | $/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | Negative| | | Petrochemical Co. Ltd | | | | | | | | | 2 | Any other | $/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 40-50% | | B | European Union | | | | | | | | | 1 | ARLANXEO | $/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 60-70% | | | Emulsion Rubber France | | | | | | | | | | S.A.S. | | | | | | | | | 2 | Any other | $/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 120-130 | | C | Russia | | | | | | | | | 1 | Any other | $/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 60-70% | | D | China | | | | | | | | | 1 | Any | $/MT | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | 30-40% | 88. It is seen that except for Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd, the dumping margin for the subject countries is above de minimis, and is significant. F. ASSESSMENT OF INJURY TO THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY F.1 Submission made by the other interested parties. 89. The other interested parties have submitted as follows with regards to injury and causal link: - i. The domestic industry has stated that it is not claiming volume injury, only price injury. In a case of material injury, examination of material injury must be done as a whole. If material injury is claimed, all injury parameters are relevant. ii. Improvement in some parameters cannot be disregarded for injury analysis, and the domestic industry cannot opt out of a given set of parameters. The report of the WTO Appellate Body in Thailand – H-Beams supports this position. iii. The performance of the domestic industry shows an improvement in seven out of fifteen injury parameters listed in the Rules, including production capacity, production, domestic sales and export sales. This shows the domestic industry is not suffering injury. iv. CESTAT has also held in Bridge Stone Tyre Manufacturing (Thailand) v. Designated Authority that all injury parameters are required to be seen. v. Landed price of imports from Korea is higher than that from other subject countries. Price undercutting is also negative for Korea. vi. Price undercutting has remained low or negative for imports from Korea throughout the injury period. Further, an analysis of the data shows that there is no correlation between import prices from Korea and profitability of the domestic industry. Therefore, imports from Korea are not a cause of injury to the domestic industry. vii. Imports from European Union ought to be decumulated for the purposes of injury analysis. Import volumes from the European Union have remained low and stable over the injury period and have actually declined compared to the base year. viii. Imports from the European Union are likely operating at a different price level than reflected in the application, with Arlanxeo’s verified data indicating higher actual prices. This reinforces the contention that European Union imports are not competing in the same price segment as imports from other subject countries, further demonstrating distinct market dynamics. ix. As per the application, price undercutting has also remained in the range of 0-10% over the entire injury period. However, profitability of the domestic industry has varied significantly over the injury period. This shows that there is no correlation between imports from the EU and profitability of/injury to the domestic industry. x. Over the past five years, the domestic industry has reported an operating profit of approximately INR 600 crores, which should have provided sufficient financial capability to invest in capacity expansion. xi. Decline in financial performance of the domestic industry is due to a correction in the market not due to dumped imports. In the annual reports and quarterly earnings calls of the domestic industry, it has been stated that prices have declined in the period of investigation compared to the previous two years due to normalisation of sea freight charges, which were higher earlier due to the Red Sea crisis and other issues. xii. Depreciation costs have increased by 65% in the period of investigation, which indicates that any financial strain is self-inflicted. xiii. Capacity expansions involving heavy capital investment lead to negative financial pressures in the short run. The domestic industry undertook capacity expansion during the injury period. Therefore, decline in financial parameters is due to the capacity expansion and not imports. xiv. The domestic industry uses pressurised containers and trucks for transportation of raw materials, as opposed to direct pipelines used by other manufacturers. This results in a 2% loss in transit, eroding cost efficiency. xv. Export volumes of the domestic industry have increased over the injury period despite a decline in export price. Therefore, injury is due to poor export performance, not subject imports. xvi. Decline in prices in the period of investigation is due to sluggish demand and decline in raw material prices. xvii. Imports from Russia ought to be decumulated due to low share of Russian imports in total imports. xviii. The domestic industry has not suffered price injury. All parameters are positive over the entire injury period; it has not suffered any losses. A decline in profit levels does not equate to material injury. xix. Import price (Rs. 203.75 /kg) of subject goods from Japan during the POI was significantly higher than the subject countries. Compared to 2022-23, the volume of imports from Japan in the POI increased by almost 35%. Moreover, imports from Japan demand a sizeable share of almost 10% in the total demand for the subject goods. xx. Applicant’s investor calls clearly reveal that further capacity expansion plans have been put on hold owing to the current CAPEX costs, as opposed to alleged dumping. xxi. In the case of Bridgestone Tyre Manufacturing (Thailand) v Designated Authority, the Hon’ble CESTAT noted that a ROCE of 22% itself is inherently high and the actual ROCE of the domestic industry should be considered with due deference to ROCE earned by other producers of the PUC. F.2. Submission made by the applicant. 90. The applicant has submitted as follows with regards to injury and causal link: - i. The product under consideration is manufactured using a continuous process. As a result, suspension or scaling down production is a significant cost in itself, causes loss of efficiency and affects quality when production is resumed or scaled up again. ii. Since the domestic demand for the product exceeds the domestic production capacity, the market is able to easily absorb the entire production of the domestic industry, especially since the lead times are much lower for the domestic industry compared to imports. iii. During the injury period, the domestic industry was able to sell at prices that allowed it to earn a positive contribution. Therefore, the domestic industry has continued to produce and sell the product during the period of investigation, and therefore, volume parameters have not been impacted. However, price parameters and profitability of the domestic industry have been severely impacted over the injury period. iv. Imports from the European Union and Korea meet all requirements for cumulation under Para (iii), Annexure II of the Rules. Mere differences in import volume trends do not warrant decumulation of imports. v. The profitability of the domestic industry over the injury period is nowhere near the figure of INR 600 crores claimed by interested parties. vi. The delta between the landed price of imports and the cost of sales of the domestic industry has declined. Therefore, over the years, the domestic industry has gradually lost the ability to price its products freely and profitably, and the profits of the domestic industry have declined. vii. Despite pricing pressures from subject imports, the domestic industry was profitable in the past. However, over the injury period, with the declining delta between landed price and cost of sales, the profitability has declined sharply. viii. The mere fact that in a previous year the imports may have been injurious due to external cost escalations, such as freight, cannot justify continued dumping in the present period. In fact, this goes to show that while exports were made from subject countries at injurious prices, the injurious effects were ameliorated due to external factors. Without those factors, the domestic industry would have been injured even then. ix. Cash profit of the domestic industry, which is calculated without deduction of depreciation costs from the revenue, has declined over the injury period. This shows that depreciation is not a cause of injury. x. Profit before interest and cash profit have both sharply declined over the injury period. This establishes that injury is not attributable to capacity expansions undertaken by the domestic industry. xi. Non-attribution analysis is not required for factors that are inherent to the domestic industry and have remained unchanged over the injury period. Therefore, the Authority must disregard claims regarding cost efficiency of the production process. xii. The domestic industry has not claimed injury on volume parameters and acknowledges that imports are necessary at present for meeting the demand in the country. xiii. Regardless of whether the domestic capacity is deficient or surplus, imports must be at fair prices to ensure a level playing field for all players and fair competition based on free-market principles. The grievance of the domestic industry is that the imports are not at fair prices. xiv. The economics of reinvestment are not being accounted for even in the determination of NIP and injury margin. Duties equivalent to the injury margin quantified are often not sufficient to fully remedy the injurious effects of dumped imports, because of consideration of 22% return on capital employed, in a situation where the significant part of the assets is fully depreciation, whereas another significant part is substantially depreciated. xv. The production capacity of the domestic industry has consistently increased over the years, and even over the injury period. Since ownership of the plant was acquired by the present applicant in 2016, capacity has been increased by 45%, and the current capacity and production are higher than that claimed by opposing interested parties. xvi. The share of NBR in cost of production of immediate downstream products is very low. Further, the share of the immediate downstream products in the cost of end-use automotive products is very low. xvii. Non-attribution analysis is not required for factors that are inherent to the domestic industry and have remained unchanged over the injury period. Therefore, claims regarding cost efficiency of the production process must be disregarded. F.3. Examination by the Authority. 91. Rule 11 of the ADD Rules provides for determination of injury and causal link, while further principles for determination of injury and causal link have been prescribed in Annexure II. Rule 11 reads as follows: RULE 11. Determination of injury. – (1) In the case of imports from specified countries, the designated authority shall record a further finding that import of such article into India causes or threatens material injury to any established industry in India or materially retards the establishment of any industry in India. (2) The designated authority shall determine the injury to domestic industry, threat of injury to domestic industry, material retardation to establishment of domestic industry and a causal link between dumped imports and injury, taking into account all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on price in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles and in accordance with the principles set out in Annexure II to these rules. (3) The designated authority may, in exceptional cases, give a finding as to the existence of injury even where a substantial portion of the domestic industry is not injured, if - (i) there is a concentration of dumped imports into an isolated market, and (ii) the dumped articles are causing injury to the producers of all or almost all of the production within such market. 92. The Authority notes that the present investigation was initiated on grounds of material injury. Therefore, in accordance with the Rules, an assessment of the injury to the domestic industry is made herein below. F.3.1 Appropriateness of the domestic industry’s claims of no volume injury 93. The domestic industry has submitted that it is not claiming volume injury in the present case. Opposing interested parties have countered that if material injury is claimed, all injury parameters are relevant. Improvement in some parameters cannot be disregarded for injury analysis, and the domestic industry cannot opt out of a given set of parameters. It has been submitted by the interested parties that the performance of the domestic industry has in fact improved on seven out of fifteen parameters over the injury period. 94. The WTO Appellate Body in Thailand – H-Beams held as follows: 7.249 While we do not consider that such positive trends in a number of factors during the IP would necessarily preclude the investigating authorities from making an affirmative determination of injury, we are of the view that that such positive movements in a number of factors would require a compelling explanation of why and how, in light of such apparent positive trends, the domestic industry was, or remained, injured within the meaning of the Agreement. In particular, we consider that such a situation would require a thorough and persuasive explanation as to whether and how such positive movements were outweighed by any other factors and indices which might be moving in a negative direction during the IP. 95. As held by the WTO Appellate Body above, it is a settled position that for a positive finding of injury, it is not necessary for all injury parameters to show a decline. A positive finding of injury may well be arrived at even if a number of parameters show improvement, provided there is a cogent explanation as to why the domestic industry was or remained injured in light of such apparent positive trends on certain parameters. 96. The claim of the domestic industry that it has not suffered volume injury is based on the following three elements: - a. The domestic demand for the product exceeds the domestic production capacity, the market is able to easily absorb the entire production of the domestic industry, especially since the lead times are much lower for the domestic industry compared to imports. b. The product under consideration is manufactured using a continuous process, as a result of which suspension or scaling down production is a significant cost in itself. Additionally, suspension or scaling down of production causes loss of efficiency and affects quality when production is resumed or scaled up again. Therefore, reducing production or sales volumes is not a viable option. c. During the injury period, the domestic industry was able to sell at prices that allowed it to earn a positive contribution. Therefore, the domestic industry has continued to produce and sell the product during the period of investigation, and therefore, volume parameters have not been impacted. However, price parameters and profitability of the domestic industry have been severely impacted over the injury period. 97. The Authority notes that the two key determinants of revenue for a business are volume and price of sales. Pursuing revenue targets through higher sales prices, higher sales volumes, or a mix of both is a matter of business strategy, which will depend on the specific nature of the industry. In the present case, the domestic industry has submitted that due to the nature of the production process, prevailing prices and market dynamics of demand and supply, it has reduced its prices to retain sales and production volumes. 98. This line of reasoning also finds strong support in the ruling of the CESTAT, in Reliance Industries Limited v Designated Authority (2023), where it was held: 22. […] When faced with cheap imports, any domestic industry has two options available. It can either retain its market by reducing prices to match imports, in which case there would be price injury but no volume injury, i.e. no decline in sales, market share, capacity utilization etc. The domestic industry may refuse to reduce prices which would result in volume injury but no price injury. 24. Thus, the accepted position on record is that even in the absence of volume injury to the domestic industry during the period of investigation, the price effect of dumped imports by itself would be a sufficient factor for examining whether the dumped imports are causing material injury to the domestic industry. 42. As an illustration, where an industry consequent to increase dumped imports, restricts its domestic sales, it is likely to show injury on all volume parameters, such as decline in sales, market share, etc. However, the price parameters such as profits, return on capital employed etc. may not show a decline, especially where the domestic industry has been able to maintain its production by exporting or by captive consumption. On the other hand, an industry which has continued competing with the imports by reducing its prices is not likely to show injury on volume parameters but its profitability, return on capital employed would register a decline. Thus, the factors relevant for assessing impact of dumped imports on the condition of domestic producers of like products would have to be determined on case-to-case basis. 99. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the Authority considers that in the present case, there is a sufficient reason justifying improvement in the volume parameters of the domestic industry. Accordingly, the Authority considers that a positive finding of injury is not precluded by any purported improvement in volume parameters over the injury period. The Authority has examined all parameters of injury, including volume parameters, and conducted a holistic assessment taking all factors into consideration. F.3.2 Appropriateness of cumulative analysis of import 100. Para (iii) of Annexure II of the Rules deals with cumulative analysis of imports. It reads as follows: (iii) In cases where imports of a product from more than one country are being simultaneously subjected to antidumping investigation, the designated authority will cumulatively assess the effect of such imports, only when it determines that, - (a) the margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each country is more than two per cent. expressed as percentage of export price and the volume of the imports from each country is three per cent. of the import of like article or where the export of individual countries is less than three per cent., the imports collectively accounts for more than seven per cent. of the import of like article; and (b) a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported products and the conditions of competition between the imported products and the like domestic products. 101. One of the interested parties, Arlanxeo, has requested decumulation of imports from the EU on the grounds that import volumes from the European Union have remained low and stable over the injury period, and have actually declined compared to the base year and the imports from European Union are at a different price level. Similarly, SIBUR has requested decumulation on the ground that the product supplied by it is a different grade and low import volume. 102. The Authority draws reference to the report of the WTO Panel in EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings, where the Panel held that a difference or dissimilarity in the ‘evolution’ of import volumes and prices does not, ipso facto, establish a difference in the conditions of competition. The Panel specifically notes that differences in evolutionary trends of import volumes and prices are not sufficient to establish a difference in the conditions of competition. While we note that a broadly parallel evolution and a broadly similar volume and price trend might well indicate that imports may appropriately be cumulated, we find no basis in the text of the Agreement for Brazil's assertion that 'only a comparable evolution and a similarity of the significantly increased import volumes and/or the significant price effects … would indicate that these imports might have a joint impact on the situation of the domestic industry and may be assessed cumulatively'. Moreover, the provision contains no express indicators by which to assess the 'conditions of competition', much less any fixed rules dictating precisely and exhaustively the relative percentages or levels of such indicators that must be present. Unlike the lists of factors that guide an authority's examination under, for example, Articles 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5, Article 3.3 does not provide even an indicative list of factors that might be relevant in the assessment called for under that provision, in particular, the assessment of 'conditions of competition'.242 We note that Article 3.2 explicitly concentrates on volume and price trends, and that Article 3.3 is neither specific nor limited in this way. Thus, while price and volume considerations may well be relevant in this context, we find no explicit reference thereto in Article 3.3(b). 103. As specifically noted by the Panel, a difference or dissimilarity in the ‘evolution’ of import volumes and prices does not, ipso facto, establish a difference in the conditions of competition. The Panel specifically notes that differences in evolutionary trends of import volumes and prices are not sufficient to establish a difference in the conditions of competition. 104. The Authority also draws reference to decision of European Commission, in Flat-Rolled Products of Silicon-Electric Steel from China PR, Japan, Korea RP, Russia and USA (2015) wherein it was noted as follows: (65) Two exporting producers claimed that the cumulative assessment of the imports from their respective countries in comparison with those from the other countries concerned was unwarranted: one of the Japanese exporting producers argued that they are only exporting high quality types of the product concerned and since its exports are decreasing, they are not exerting any price pressure on the Union market. The American exporting producer argued that imports from the USA decreased by 400 % during the period considered and that it has always set prices at much higher levels than other producers. Furthermore, one user argued that such a cumulative assessment is inappropriate due to the decrease in imports and the difference in price behaviour, on top of the fact that a particular exporting producer is selling types of the product concerned that the Union producers and other producers of the countries concerned do not sell. (66) As set out in recital (132) of the provisional Regulation, it has been acknowledged that there was a decrease in imports from Japan and the USA during the period considered. Nevertheless, these imports have also contributed to the exerted price pressure for the product concerned on the Union market. Imports from Japan and the USA were found to be dumped and their products are clearly in direct competition with Union products and products from other exporting producers. All types of the product concerned, including the types sold by the Japanese and American exporting producers, are sold for use in the production of transformer cores and they are sold to the same relatively limited group of customers. Therefore, the Commission rejected the claims for de-cumulation. 105. In order to ascertain whether cumulative assessment of the effect of imports is appropriate in light of the conditions of competition between the imported article and the like domestic articles, the following parameters have been examined: -